On Thu, 2 Apr 2015, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 03/23/2015 07:41 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: > > > Ah, I should have looked at what max_align_t actually meant. With these > > semantics, the name is a bit confusing. I agree that requiring 64 byte > > alignment from malloc does not make much sense. Thanks. > > Follow-up question: Can malloc return a pointer which is not aligned to > _Alignof (max_align_t)? > > This happens with most mallocs on x86_64 for sizes of 8 or less, for > which these mallocs only provide an alignment of 8. > > DR445 does not seem to have reached consensus on that point.
I see no lack of consensus. <http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1892.htm#dr_445> says "The proposed changes have raised no concerns and so the committee has agreed to use them as the following Proposed Technical Corrigendum.", and nothing regarding alignment for small allocations has changed since DR#075. "suitably aligned so that it may be assigned to a pointer to any type of object with a fundamental alignment requirement" (unchanged wording in 7.22.3) implies being suitably aligned for all types with fundamental alignment requirements; otherwise such assignment would result in undefined behavior at runtime. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
